hesi Posted September 24, 2018 Share Posted September 24, 2018 Curious, has done an excellent precis response to the 17 recommendations. In many cases, it is a matter of agreement in principle, because of the absence of more detail, which clearly will follow. It is not the intention to submit anything as a formal response, but feel free to comment or add in Recommendations 1. Change the governance structure, so the NZRB becomes Wagering NZ with racing responsibilities devolving to the individual Codes. This will sharpen the commercial focus of TAB operations and improve the decision-making and accountability of the Codes. Something along these lines possibly a good idea. Worth more detailed development. 2. Establish Racing NZ as a consultative forum for the three Codes to agree on issues such as entering into commercial agreements with Wagering NZ, approving betting rules and budgets for the integrity bodies, equine health & research, etc. Same as 1. 3. Change the composition and qualifications for directors of regulatory bodies. Yes, definitely needs sorting. Again, the devil is in the detail. 4. Request that a Performance and Efficiency Audit of the NZRB be initiated under section 14 of the Racing Act 2003, with particular emphasis on the operating costs of the NZRB. Absolutely. Required under current legislation anyway and overdue. The right reviewer and terms of reference to address some of the matters in this report is critical. 5. Amend the Section 16 distribution formula of the Racing Act 2003 to a more equitable basis for fixed 10-year terms. Don’t think the report makes a sensible case for this. Should remain proportionally based on domestic revenue generated. 6. Initiate a special review of the structure and efficacy of the RIU and allied integrity bodies, to be conducted by an independent qualified person. Yep. Probably should be devolved back to the codes. Has been a disaster as currently structured. Critical ingredient for increasing wagering revenue that integrity system is much more robust and reliable and seen to be so by punters. 7. Begin negotiations for the outsourcing of the TAB’s commercial activities to an international wagering operator, to gain the significant advantages of scale. Worth considering but detailed business case needs to be made alongside alternatives. In particular, retaining the tote business and making it globally competitive and licensing fixed odds operators in NZ (with a restriction on tote derivative products) should be considered. 8. Seek approval for a suite of new wagering products to increase funding for the industry. OK. But not likely to improve revenue. Adds to costs and unlikely to increase overall punter spend. 9. Confirm the assignment of Intellectual Property (IP) by the Clubs to the Codes. Don’t see the point in this. Clubs may be better to retain and control this themselves. Needs work and a better case made. Can club and community assets be co-opted legislatively or lawfully? 10. Introduce Race Field and Point Of Consumption Tax legislation expeditiously. These two measures will bring New Zealand’s racing industry into line with its Australian counterparts and provide much needed additional revenue. Race fields, yes of course. But legislation not required for arrangements with corporate bookmakers to be put in place as already demonstrated. RB estimates wildly out of kilter with the reliable research. DIA estimates more robust. I’d say might get to $3-5m net across all codes. PoC tax, nope. See DIA estimates that administrative costs may exceed revenue. Providers already paying a consumption tax in the form of GST. If implemented any net revenue should go to taxpayer not racing anyway. 11. Repeal the existing betting levy of approximately $13 million per annum paid by the NZRB, given that the thoroughbred Code is a loss maker overall, with the net owners’ losses outweighing the NZRB’s net profit. Nice if you can get it. Note that some $50m of duty relief previously granted has been wasted on stakes and operating costs. Industry didn’t do what they said they would with that so why should the taxpayer gift more to a declining industry, or any industry for that matter. Also, an equity matter with casinos betting duty. Probably politically unpalatable. 12. Clarify legislation to vest Race Club property and assets to the Code regulatory bodies for the benefit of the industry as a whole. Big NO. Can’t legislate to colonise community and club assets. Needs to occur voluntarily at the discretion of club members where clubs will no longer have raceday licences. They should decide whether assets are put to other uses in the community. Any reinvestment in racing will also mostly have to be in the same region. 13. Reduce the number of thoroughbred race tracks from 48 to 28 tracks under a scheduled program. This does not require the closure of any Club Yep. No brainer but the redevelopment of remaining tracks needs to occur first in order to have an infrastructure in place that can cope with the racing required. 14. Upgrade the facilities and tracks of the remaining racecourses with funds generated from the sale of surplus property resulting from track closures to provide a streamlined, modern and competitive thoroughbred racing sector capable of marketing itself globally. Yep to the upgrades but the business case for that needs to be funded from current and future revenue and be sustainable. 15. Construct three synthetic all-weather tracks at Cambridge, Awapuni & Riccarton with assistance from the New Zealand Government’s Provincial Growth Fund. Support the development of the Waikato Greenfields Project. Yep in principle. Again, the initial cost and ongoing maintenance needs to be funded from current and future revenue increases. The business case is not made in the report. Needs more detailed work. That should include comparison of synthetics with Strathayr for these AWTs. 16. Introduce robust processes to establish traceability from birth and the re-homing of the entire thoroughbred herd, as the foundation stone of the industry’s ongoing animal welfare program. Fine. 17. Increase thoroughbred prizemoney gradually to over $100 million per annum through a simplified three-tier racing model, with payments extended to tenth place in all races. Great but it is not clear where the revenue or cost savings to do that will come from other than some from the restructuring perhaps. Recommended changes as above will not on their own make the NZ racing product competitive or attract more wagering spend. That also requires, among other things, aligning the prizemoney structure more closely to revenue generated and having a fair and competitive handicapping system for starters. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huey Posted October 16, 2018 Share Posted October 16, 2018 Fortunas Submission on their website Just out of interest ,does anyone know if Mr Galvin has been on a racing club committee or such? https://www.fortuna-nz.com/ctmgr/wp-content/uploads/Submission-to-the-Department-of-Internal-Affairs-form-Fortuna-Ltd.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted October 16, 2018 Share Posted October 16, 2018 Obviously has no clue about the wagering industry and just wants temporary higher stakes for syndication purposes. Not very helpful in my view and no revenue based rationale for his arguments. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wally Posted October 16, 2018 Share Posted October 16, 2018 2 hours ago, Huey said: Fortunas Submission on their website Just out of interest ,does anyone know if Mr Galvin has been on a racing club committee or such? https://www.fortuna-nz.com/ctmgr/wp-content/uploads/Submission-to-the-Department-of-Internal-Affairs-form-Fortuna-Ltd.pdf was ellis ever involved with fortuna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hesi Posted October 16, 2018 Author Share Posted October 16, 2018 1 hour ago, curious said: Obviously has no clue about the wagering industry and just wants temporary higher stakes for syndication purposes. Not very helpful in my view and no revenue based rationale for his arguments. Isn't that the view of everyone within a 50km radius of Hamilton. Add in trading of bloodstock and preparing horses to race in Aus A nice little number for those that can get it 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huey Posted October 16, 2018 Share Posted October 16, 2018 10 hours ago, hesi said: Isn't that the view of everyone within a 50km radius of Hamilton. Add in trading of bloodstock and preparing horses to race in Aus A nice little number for those that can get it That's right Hesi , you only have to listen to Simon on WI , the general consensus is if it doesn't directly impact on us we are all for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hesi Posted October 16, 2018 Author Share Posted October 16, 2018 No one has explained how a synthetic track at Cambridge, that has no facilities(and Rotorua are supposedly moving there)will benefit racing, other than allowing the rich to get richer Smacks of a pay off Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.